All car owners are cash cows.

Then you can update it via USB instead. You have a car that has OTA updates, keep it in a place where there is no signal, and don't know this? Wasn't it in the manual?

Yes. And then after 3 months you return, and you update the car before driving it anywhere. (If the place you left the car doesn't have coverage, you can use USB instead of OTA.)

Are y'all misunderstanding this to mean the updates will only be available for 45 days? I guess I shouldn't be surprised that drivers can't read, but damn.

He said they use things like perplexity instead. I had to look it up but -

Perplexity is a free AI-powered answer engine

"We"? I don't. There is not, has never been, and never will be any version of Windows that has Recall in my home nor on my network (nor any version of Windows at all from now on, Recall was just the final straw).

Those that do put up with it, it's because they have something akin to Stockholm syndrome, or whatever makes people stay in abusive relationships, or maybe it's akin to addiction. They're convinced they need Microsoft and things would be worse without Windows, so tell themselves whatever Microsoft does isn't so bad, or it's not Microsoft's fault (the thing the user disabled was accidentally re-enabled, Microsoft didn't mean it!) or they can trust Microsoft now even though they couldn't before (it'll be different this time - things won't be re-enabled nor exploited by nefarious people even though there's a track record of that happening!).

And every time I point this out, there are people that argue with me that no, they actually need Microsoft.

like we've already been doing for years on Linux with Lutris.

It's funny how people will say "People want this, because it's easier!" and also "People don't want to use Linux, because it's harder!"

Nobody knows what's best for you. People have their opinion on what is best but that's just what's best for them. That's why they don't agree. If you say what you want and what you're used to, someone can tell you what's "best", but then you'll be disappointed and put off Linux if that one distro isn't best for you or doesn't work the way you want. You have to try some and see what you think is best. There is no harm in trying multiple.

Why, when that's another point in favor of switching in my book? I mean, you can choose whatever distro is exactly right for you/your user; simple or complicated, full control or inability to break anything, looks and works like Windows if that's what you want (whatever version of Windows you want) or looks/works nothing like Windows if that's what you want. Why do people not want choice and freedom?

I recall watching a movie where some thugs crash a party where a bunch of rich people were and he demanded everyone hand over wallets, jewelry, and cell phones. That movie was from 1995, and even with the movie that old I thought the phones back then would have the ability for remote disabling.

I always thought the point of that was so that nobody called the cops before they were gone. Bricking aside, I don't know how useful stolen cellphones would have been in 1995? Compared to today when everyone has one so there's a market for working used parts, and you can easily get paid for recycling them.

Also put cloud in the name, sure, that'll make everyone feel better. Just look at another child's toy, CloudPets. And that was only audio recordings. If something like that happens with these video recordings (because we all know Nintendo isn't immune to data breaches) it'll just be the parents' fault for buying the camera and letting their kid use "cloud chat" in the first place. Even if they weren't aware of the risks because people are afraid to talk about it since everyone that tries is accused of being a perv who wants to get nude on a children's toy.

This is a child's toy.

Yes, I saw that you said that. My response was based on you saying that.

One can't even begin to seriously protect children without supervision.

Yes, but we don't entrust that supervision to random, unknown people for a reason.

We all know children are not properly supervised when around random men online.

So how can random men online be the supervision?

Life guards are big brother! Police at large gatherings are big brother! Hall monitors are big brother!

I didn't say the act of recording itself was 1984 shit. And I don't want lifeguards recording my kids as they swim and sending the videos off to their unseen bosses to judge if they're drowning. (Sure, my kids could just not swim if I don't want that, but that's bullshit, my kids should be able to swim.) Hall monitors, when they're not other kids, have to pass background checks (though I know, passing that just means a person hasn't been caught doing something) and have the community watching to make sure they're not pervs.

The police... okay actually, that may be a good analogy. We can't even keep pervs and abusers out of the police force, how do you expect we can keep them out of the Nintendo moderation team? Who has access to their body cam footage? What are they doing with the footage of children? All of this actually is a big deal that we talk about without being accused of being a perv.

This reeks of over simplification or rationalization by a perv.

Yeah, the only reason I could see an issue with children being recorded and potentially watched by random unknown, unseen people is if I'm a perv.

If we put cameras into bathrooms they'd be much nicer

But I'm the one that reeks of being a perv.

Seems you're the one that can't read; I didn't say the act of recording itself was 1984 shit. I said Suggesting the reason people don't want to be recorded and potentially watched is that they're doing something inappropriate is some 1984 shit. And I've read the book.

So you don't understand the difference between being behind the Wendy's cash register and having a video chat in your own home. Nor the difference between doing a Twitch stream and having a video chat. And also threw in some weird, out of left field jab at people who work at Wendy's (I haven't worked in fast food since I was a teenager, but it's a perfectly valid job.)? Okay.

I have a problem with children broadcasting anything precisely because you can't control what anyone does at the other end.

So then you should be protesting the very existence of GameChat, which is encouraging children to broadcast themselves? I mean personally I do think the whole thing is a horrible idea in the first place because of the problems with children broadcasting themselves at all, and I really don't think anyone asked for it.

Your argument is like saying Twitch shouldn't record streams because there might be children in them.

Nope; when your child does a Twitch stream, you EXPECT that it will be recorded and broadcast out to you-dont-know-who. Also Twitch has some pretty strict rules about minors, and easy ways for parents to remove a minor's recordings from the Twitch servers. (Obviously that doesn't stop viewers that have recorded it themselves, but you can't stop that in a video chat either. Although actually in this case, Nintendo has the power to delete recordings from people's consoles - though obviously not if it's been backed up somewhere else. Are they going to do that?) If kids are going to be banned from GameChat when it's apparent they're using it without adult supervision, as is done on Twitch if someone notices, then maybe my opinion on it will change; but I highly doubt that's going to be the case.

What steps is Nintendo taking to ensure that the moderators aren't creeps? How are they going to deal with it if say, they get sent a video of a naked minor? Those are some of the problems I'm talking about. I never suggested all reporting functions be removed, I just don't think GameChat as it appears to be now is a good idea. How about you fuck off with "if you speak up against it you must be a creep supporter" bullshit.

The agreement is not the law. So we'll see how well that holds up, especially when many of the people "giving consent" will be children.

You have to hack a console to add mods to games and to play homebrew games (the specific type of indie games #65431106 is refering to). So yes, they are reserving the right to brick a console if they don't like the way you play with it.

There's a big difference between just doing it, and having the user agree to it. Without the user agreeing, it can be argued that it's not legal to brick a hacked console - and in some places, it just flat out is illegal.

Previously Nintendo just banned hacked consoles from their online services, which nearly everyone agrees is reasonable (to help prevent cheaters in online games). The hate is because this is one of several unwelcome changes, that is nothing but negative for customers.

1. Suggesting the reason people don't want to be recorded and potentially watched is that they're doing something inappropriate is some 1984 shit.

2. You don't see the problem with children being recorded and potentially watched?